We've had reasonably strict firearm laws here (Australia) for the last decade and a bit (assault weapon, automatic and semi-automatic weapon ban, stringent licensing and storage requirements), which have resulted in a reduction of firearm ownership from 7% to 5% of the population since introduction. The laws came after a 35-person killing spree in Tasmania.
The first thing of note with our firearm laws is that our homicide rate
has gone down, but
not at a rate any more significant than it was declining pre-firearm laws. To me, all that says is that here, people out to kill someone are going to do it whether they can use a gun or not. The gun laws haven't changed anything there.
Next up, burglary. A lot of people seem to be quite adamant about defending their family and all that as a reason for firearms. Here are a few statistics of note from Australia since the laws:
10% of shootings are carried out by licensed weapons (ie, 90% unlicensed / stolen).
Average of 3.3% of homes have an attempted break-in per 12 month period.
44% of robberies involve a weapon of some sort.
7% of robberies involve a firearm ("involve" meaning the burglar carried one, not necessarily shooting anyone with it").
The number of robberies involving a firearm has dropped from mid-20% figures pre-laws.
So right there we've got a substantial drop in the number of armed robberies using firearms. Given the emotive responses about defending one's family that have come up with this thread, this seems to be a fairly significant impact that to me nullifies many such arguments, at least as they apply to Australia. And to me, that's a positive outcome; I'd much rather face a burglar who isn't armed with a firearm than with, and Australia's gun laws seemed to have made it far less likely that the bugger won't have one.
That's not to say that you'd get the same outcome in other places; obviously, the US in particular has a pretty drastically different cultural and social environment than Australia that would likely negate the possibility of any such outcomes. But as far as Australia is concerned, it seems pretty damned positive.
One thing's for sure at least; the outcome is far from some doomsday scenario where gunbound criminals have free reign of the nation, burgling unchallenged from door to door. In reality, about the same number of burglaries occur, and less of the burglars are armed with guns. By rights, that's not a particularly bad outcome as far as I'm concerned. Of course, that's not touching on ownership rights and the like, but that too is a different case here given we have no constitutional right to arms.
Finally, since the laws were introduced we haven't really had any crazy killing sprees; maybe it's just a fluke and isn't too reflective on the gun laws, though in reality the difficulty of obtaining something to really mow people down with would certainly be making it more difficult than in the past. On that note, the following article hit the news the other day; it's probably biased as hell given the sources (ie, the police), but interesting nevertheless. I can't help but have a laugh at the nerve I'm sure it'd hit with some people given its relationship to the ever-present terry-wrist fearmongering, so here it is:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/could-no ... -ea30.html